use_connection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context that the call performs a validation and will fail if the connection cannot be opened, but it does not say what happens to a previously active connection, whether the setting persists across requests, or what failure looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence in which both clauses earn their place, and the primary effect (defining the active connection) is front-loaded. It is written in Portuguese while sibling tooling and annotations are English, a minor consistency cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the validation behaviour is disclosed. However, for a tool that mutates session state among many connection-management siblings, the description still leaves the agent guessing about failure handling and about how it relates to open_connection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single param already documents 'Nome ou alias da conexão'. The description adds the key semantic that the argument becomes the session-wide default used whenever 'connection' is omitted elsewhere, which the schema does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: it sets the session's active connection and verifies it can be opened. This is distinguishable from open_connection/close_connection in intent, though the description never names those siblings, so the boundary with open_connection (which presumably also opens a connection) is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical 'usada quando connection é omitido' implies when the setting matters, but only for other tools' behaviour, not for when to call this tool instead of open_connection or add_connection. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.